Evidence of meeting #44 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you. We're at eight and a half minutes here.
I will return to Mr. Goldring, and then we'll come back on a second round. The bells are not ringing, so we've all been fortunate this morning. We'll get a few extra questions out of you.
Mr. Goldring.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blackburn, I suppose it's not what's not in this bill that is the concern; it's what's in this bill and the fact that it's instructing the ministers to investigate all issues.
The suggestion in the bill is very clear that the companies subscribe and adhere to human rights provisions that are international. It also has other standards, which would imply other laws. There might be indigenous understandings. It might be sharia law in other parts of the world and how that applies to not only your own mining business but maybe the communities. I understand some mines have their own mining towns, so it brings you into the social requirements of conforming to all forms of international law, all forms of understanding, even in those communities, too. We all know that Canada itself does not subscribe to many of those, so you're really asking the corporations to adhere to laws that Canada doesn't even subscribe to.
Then we have the situation of the minister trying to receive these complaints, investigating these complaints, and maybe taking legal steps to deal with the complaints. What do they do? Do they bring it to a court of Canada, do they bring it to the court of Mexico, or do they bring it to some other international body and court?
In other words, those are the complexities and the uncertainties that are in this bill, which are instructive, and you can't really get around that. So I'm saying again that it's not what's not in this bill that's of concern, it's what's in this bill. We're hearing it over and over again, whether it's from EDC, DFAIT, or business after business after business.
You have a very substantial amount of business worldwide yourself, some $7 billion from your firm alone. You can extrapolate that across the other companies, I don't know how many there are, maybe hundreds of businesses.
My understanding, after meeting with the Mexican ambassador yesterday, is that in Mexico alone the largest level of Canadian investment in that country is in the mining sector.
The Canadian mining sector really is leading the world in showing this. There are many other industries in Canada that can take a lot of lessons from the mining industry, because many are not nearly as well organized worldwide. So hats off to the Canadian mining industry for showing to the world that Canada can be a leader, but we're risking this entire worldwide number-one business that Canada has internationally.
I go back to the Toronto Stock Exchange once again and the strong concern here that it's going to have a diametrical and very negative impact. Coming from a business background myself, I know full well that if I had a choice of which way to go, I have read and written thousands of specifications on construction projects, and when it says “You shall do”, you pay attention. There are many projects I would not bid on because they were too restrictive. So you find another way to do it.
Can you expand a little bit more on that, on the potential risk to the largest component of Canadian international business that we have?
Senior Vice-President, SNC-Lavalin International, SNC-Lavalin Inc.
Following from what you said, the difference between an ombudsman that does a common sense, if you want.... It's not based on a Canadian law, but on a Canadian policy to look at Canadian values and international obligations. The difference between that and trying to enforce a Canadian law extraterritorially on a Canadian business operating in a foreign jurisdiction, where it has its own laws and customs and traditions, as you want, and its own systems--as we've heard that Mexico has, and Peru, which is another country where many investors in the mining sector there are Canadians--yes, it raises uncertainty. Uncertainty is the most discouraging factor for business investment, and this is adding the—
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
You can't simply repair this bill with an ombudsman. There are too many other restrictive covenants in it.
December 3rd, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
I don't want to get into an argument, but what is extraterritorial when you look at what the actual bill says? The bill says the minister will develop guidelines. We all agree that there will have to be a process that respects natural justice inside the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. That's absolutely a given. That's our legal obligation as a country to do that.
The guidelines are discussed with the industry and negotiated with the industry--and with everybody else--over a period of a year. As a result, eventually, if this bill were ever to become law, the process would then be that there would be a complaint, the minister finds it's frivolous, it doesn't happen, or the minister says it's actually something serious and we're going to look at it.
The consequence of all of that is essentially two things: one, if there's a finding of a breach of a guideline that's irreparable, the EDC has to take that into account in its decisions. Second, the Canada Pension Plan—again, Mr. McKay's open secret is going to be producing some amendments next week—has to take that into account, as well.
How is that extraterritorial? It's simply saying your conduct as a corporation is something that we, as a government, will take into account. It's actually no different from what EDC does now with respect to environmental law. We already accept the fact that environmental standards will be built into the corporate social responsibility conduct. The only additional thing is the question about human rights because of the implications it has for our corporate reputation, and frankly, for our country's reputation.
I've done it for your company as a premier. I've proudly represented SNC-Lavalin in countries around the world--in Malaysia, in China, everywhere--with great pride because your company has a sterling reputation. Companies are asking premiers and politicians and prime ministers to do this all the time, which we should do. It's our obligation to do it. The essence of this, and what's happening with corporate social responsibility, is we're saying we have to look at the whole picture of what the corporation's conduct is before you can draw on the resources of the Government of Canada. To me, this is hardly revolutionary behaviour.
Senior Vice-President, SNC-Lavalin International, SNC-Lavalin Inc.
And we're very grateful for your support.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I had the pleasure of being with Lavalin, as well, in Libya with former Prime Minister Martin. So I appreciate exactly what you're saying. However, these bells have called us to the House right away.
When the bells start, we have an option.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay, so it's the 30-minute bells.
We need unanimous consent in order to continue. Do we have it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No?
All right, I want to thank the witnesses for attending here today. And this has been a little different kind of day. Please do not assume that this is the way this committee is conducted all the time.
Mr. Heaps, just to conclude, thank you for coming, and sorry you weren't part of it initially when we started. I think your grandfather--your great-grandfather--would be very proud to see you here today. I think he was politically motivated, from what I understand.
All of you, thanks for your attendance.
We're adjourned.
